First author, corresponding author and co-authors on a PhD paper

Who should be first author on a PhD paper?

You should. If the paper comes out of your thesis work, and you collected the data, ran the analysis and wrote the draft, the first-author slot is yours in almost every field that orders authors by contribution.

Universities that count papers for the thesis often assume this too. Anna University, for example, wants the scholar as first author, or second when the supervisor is first. Rules like this vary, so read our guide to the publication requirement for a PhD and then your own ordinance before you settle the order.

Where it gets less obvious:

• Two scholars on one dataset. If a lab-mate did as much as you, talk about it now. One leads this paper, the other the next, or you use an equal-contribution note.
• Fields that list authors alphabetically, such as much of mathematics. Keep a note from your supervisor explaining the convention for the research cell.

The UGC PhD Regulations, 2022 say nothing about author order. They only require a “Research and Publication Ethics” course within the 12 coursework credits (clause 9(1)).

Who counts as an author? The ICMJE criteria and CRediT roles

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) wrote the definition most journals borrow, including many outside medicine. An author must meet all four of these:

1. a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to acquiring, analysing or interpreting the data;
2. drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
3. final approval of the version to be published;
4. agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

All four, not any one. Someone who designed the study but never read the manuscript fails criteria 2 and 3. ICMJE also says that anyone who meets the first criterion should get the chance to help draft and approve the paper, so nobody is shut out on a technicality. Getting funding, general supervision of a research group and language editing do not, by themselves, earn authorship.

The 14 CRediT roles

CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) describes what each person did. It became an ANSI/NISO standard in 2022, and Elsevier journals, among others, ask for a CRediT statement at submission. The 14 roles, in the official spelling:

Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

CRediT does not decide who qualifies. Elsevier’s CRediT page says the statement “in no way changes the journal’s criteria to qualify for authorship”.

Where does the supervisor go in the author list?

In many lab-based science and engineering groups, the supervisor goes last, a position read as “the person who led the project”. In many social science and management departments the supervisor is second, directly after the scholar. Both are conventions. Neither is written into ICMJE, which says order is to be decided by the author group, not by editors.

My advice: follow what your department’s recent papers do, unless your university’s counting rule forces something else. If your supervisor wants to be first on what is clearly your chapter, raise it early, with the ordinance open on the table.

A co-supervisor or a DC member who gave real input on the method can be an author. A HOD who signed the forwarding letter cannot.

What does the corresponding author do, and should it be you?

ICMJE describes the corresponding author as the one person with primary responsibility for communication with the journal during submission, peer review and publication. They make sure the paperwork (authorship details, ethics approval, disclosures) is complete, and stay available after publication to answer critiques and requests for data.

Publishers add duties. Springer Nature asks the corresponding author to confirm they can act for all co-authors and that everyone has agreed the author list and contribution statements. Nature Portfolio journals make them answerable for the proofs, including names and affiliations, and require their ORCID iD. Elsevier wants them to make sure no inappropriate co-authors are on the paper.

Taking it as a scholar has advantages: you see every email and learn how revisions work. The problem is timing. If you submit six months before your thesis, the revision may land during your viva preparation, and a reader’s query about your data may come two years later when your university email no longer works. That is why many supervisors take the role, and why that is often sensible rather than a question of credit.

If you do take it, use a permanent personal email address. Whoever it is, agree that every journal email gets forwarded to all authors; revision and proof deadlines are the ones that get missed, as our guide to publishing a research paper warns.

How do equal contribution, acknowledgements and changes to authors after submission work?

Equal contribution

Some journals let you mark two or more authors as having contributed equally, usually with a symbol and a footnote. Nature Portfolio journals, for instance, allow one set of co-authors to be marked as contributing equally and one set as having jointly supervised the work. Check the journal’s guide for authors, then your university, since a committee may look only at the name printed first.

People who helped but aren’t authors

The technician who ran the samples, the friend who corrected your English: thank them by name in the acknowledgements, saying what they did, and ask their permission first (ICMJE suggests written permission). Our thesis acknowledgement guide applies the same idea to the thesis itself.

Adding or removing authors after submission

It is deliberately difficult. ICMJE asks editors to get an explanation and a signed agreement from all listed authors and from the person being added or removed. Elsevier considers changes after submission only at the editor’s discretion, needs all authors to agree, and does not allow any change after acceptance. So finish the author list before you press submit.

How do you prevent authorship disputes? Agree it in writing first

Authorship disagreements usually start when the order was never discussed: eighteen months later, two scholars have each assumed they would be second. COPE’s guide for new researchers recommends starting the authorship conversation when you plan the research and deciding authors before you start each article.

An email after a short meeting, with every future author replying “agreed”, is enough. Cover these points:

• Every person who will be an author, and what each will actually do: analysis, writing, figures, critical revision.
• The author order, and what would change it (for example, if a co-author’s part turns into a full chapter of new work).
• Who is corresponding author, and which email address they will use for the next five years.
• Whether anyone is marked as equal contribution, and whether the target journal allows it.
• Who is acknowledged rather than listed, and who asks them for permission.
• ORCID iDs for all authors, collected before submission.
• How disagreements will be settled: first a meeting with the supervisor, then the co-supervisor or DC/RAC, then the institution’s research integrity process.
• A line at the end: “All of us have read and agree to this plan”, with each person’s reply saved.

If a dispute happens anyway, it is resolved at the institution rather than by journal editors. ICMJE says the institution where the work was done should investigate, and COPE’s 2019 discussion document also expects institutions to help. In practice: supervisor, then DC or RAC, then your university’s research integrity committee. Keep the drafts and emails that show who did what.

Collect every author’s ORCID iD at this stage, not the night before submission; our ORCID and Scopus ID guide shows how to create one.

Worked example: a four-author paper and its CRediT statement

An illustrative case, with made-up names. Meera is a fourth-year scholar in agricultural economics writing up a chapter on crop-insurance uptake as a journal paper. Four people had a hand in it, and the order they agreed by email was:

1. 1

   Meera Pillai (PhD scholar): first author

   Designed the survey with her supervisor, collected the farmer responses, ran the analysis and wrote the first draft.

2. 2

   Arjun Rao (fellow scholar): second author

   Cleaned the dataset, translated the Kannada questionnaire, and critically revised the draft.

3. 3

   Dr S. Fatima (statistics department): third author

   Advised on the sampling design, checked the regression models and rewrote the limitations section.

4. 4

   Prof. K. Raghavan (supervisor): last and corresponding author

   Conceived the study, secured the grant and revised every draft. Corresponding because Meera submits her thesis in eight months.

Not on the list: the field assistant who distributed questionnaires in one taluk (acknowledged), the HOD (did not contribute), and the funding agency (named in the funding statement).

Their CRediT statement, in the format Elsevier journals print above the acknowledgements:

Meera Pillai: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Arjun Rao: Data curation, Validation, Writing – review & editing. S. Fatima: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. K. Raghavan: Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.

Notice that Prof. Raghavan’s claim to authorship does not rest on Supervision or Funding acquisition. It rests on conceiving the study and revising the text, which are ICMJE criteria 1 and 2. If he had only arranged the money, he would belong in the acknowledgements. The same rules apply to review papers and short communications (see types of research articles); for the rest of the manuscript, see how to write a research paper.